On 2018-04-30 22:16, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> Getting the constant ordering right could be part of the macro
>> definition, maybe? i.e.:
>>
>> static inline void *kmalloc_ab(size_t a, size_t b, gfp_t flags)
>> {
>> if (__builtin_constant_p(a) && a != 0 && \
>> b > SIZE_MAX / a)
>> return NULL;
>> else if (__builtin_constant_p(b) && b != 0 && \
>> a > SIZE_MAX / b)
>> return NULL;
>>
>> return kmalloc(a * b, flags);
>> }
>
> Ooh, if neither a nor b is constant, it just didn't do a check ;-( This
> stuff is hard.
>
>> (I just wish C had a sensible way to catch overflow...)
>
> Every CPU I ever worked with had an "overflow" bit ... do we have a
> friend on the C standards ctte who might figure out a way to let us
> write code that checks it?
gcc 5.1+ (I think) have the __builtin_OP_overflow checks that should
generate reasonable code. Too bad there's no completely generic
check_all_ops_in_this_expression(a+b*c+d/e, or_jump_here). Though it's
hard to define what they should be checked against - probably would
require all subexpressions (including the variables themselves) to have
the same type.
plug: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/19/358
Rasmus
